28 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
28 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
|
Structured to match NLNet's form fields:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- Proposal name: "piker: sovereign, structured-concurrent trading infrastructure for the commons"
|
||
|
|
- Abstract: comprehensive description of what piker is today + 5 concrete deliverables for the grant
|
||
|
|
- Relevant experience: your background with tractor/trio/structured concurrency ecosystem
|
||
|
|
- Comparison: positions piker against proprietary platforms, permissively-licensed FOSS libraries, and
|
||
|
|
institutional systems — hits NLNet's "market failure" framing hard
|
||
|
|
- Technical challenges: 5 real engineering problems (distributed SC, zero-copy shm, broker heterogeneity, UI
|
||
|
|
perf, reproducible packaging)
|
||
|
|
- Ecosystem engagement: upstream contributions, Matrix community, pikers.dev self-hosting, open data
|
||
|
|
formats, standards work
|
||
|
|
- Budget: €50k breakdown across 7 task areas at €75/h
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Key arguments aligned with NLNet Commons Fund mission:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. Financial infrastructure as captured commons — the "market failure" framing NLNet explicitly looks for
|
||
|
|
2. AGPLv3+ as the license that actually prevents enclosure (not MIT/Apache which they've seen fail)
|
||
|
|
3. "Honest, open, inclusive, robust" — their exact language mapped onto piker's properties
|
||
|
|
4. Zero-web / federated / your-hardware-your-data as data sovereignty
|
||
|
|
5. tractor as a standalone commons contribution beyond just trading
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Things you'll want to customize before submitting:
|
||
|
|
- Your Matrix room URL
|
||
|
|
- Budget amounts / hourly rate to match your actual needs
|
||
|
|
- Contact info on the form itself
|
||
|
|
- Whether to attach a demo screencast or architecture diagram
|
||
|
|
- The AI disclosure section (they require it since we used AI to draft)
|